What is Iran up to?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Kliro

Where is your foundation for this?

(apart from the headlines of the sun)

Are you denying that the Iranian leader has called for Isreal to be wiped off the map?

[Kliro]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Who has comitted genocide in the name of liberation and where did they do that?

It is estimated that somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 civilians have been unlawfully killed in iraq since the beginning of the war.

Not so much 'accidental' civilian targets - but an attempt to try and send a message across to other middle eastern countries that they werent messing around.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

as public enemy once said, "Don't believe the Hype". Public leaders will say what they want to stir up the masses and carry favour, but do you honestly believe that anyone in the middle east would actually launch a nuclear attack on israel? Oh please.

Israel believed as much, hence why they knocked out Saddam's nuclear program, or did you forget about that?

Originally Posted by BBKing

1) A country with nuclear weapons
2) A country with a first use doctrine for the use of tactical nuclear weapons

That merely gives them means to use them, not more likely to use them.

Originally Posted by BBKing

In that situation, wouldn't you want to even things up by having a few nukes of your own?

This isn't an argument for proliferation,

Oh yes it is.

Originally Posted by BBKing

incidentally, it's an argument for disarmament and diplomacy.

Which is what has been going on for quite some time now, but Iran seems to be making little effort in that direction.

Originally Posted by BBKing

The current crop of Dr. Strangelove clones in the Pentagon is not a recipe for anyone's security and you're a fool if you think otherwise.

You're obviously well acquainted with the inhabitants of the Pentagon, and poor foolish me is clearly ignorant of them.

I still think there is a big difference between a soldier considering effective methods of warfare and an relgious extremist despot screaming murder.

Originally Posted by BBKing

* Didn't you know that one of Rumsfeld's changes to US doctrine is that tac nukes can be used first? The new US Ambassador to the UN is keen on it, too.

There is a big difference between tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons. I don't believe the US has changed their stance on the latter.

As far as I can see, the countries with recent nuclear ambitions all seem to be trying to get strategic nuclear weapons.

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Israel believed as much, hence why they knocked out Saddam's nuclear program, or did you forget about that?

Well Israel also don't seem to mind annexing land, kidnapping people from other countries and taking them back to Israel illegally, state-sponsored killings of people with no trial, keeping people in solitary confinement in jail for years at a time etc. etc.

I'm quite sure they also beleive if they could get away with it they would take out the Iranian nuclear sites in a heartbeat.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Israel believed as much, hence why they knocked out Saddam's nuclear program, or did you forget about that?

Still doesnt mean he was going to use them does it. More so a case of Israel showing its might to neigbouring arab countries again.

anyway for what gives the right for israel to have nuclear weapons when its leaders sanction bombings of 'terrorist targets' irrespective of the civilian deaths caused? I bet there are thoussands of israelis going around citing death to all its arab neighbours, but there's no problem with them having weapons....

Originally Posted by Kliro

The same seems to be true of Americans, many would be glad to bomb away at Iran, and some even France - with their reasons starting at 'I don't like their attitude'

I think quite a few Brits would quickly join the queue to push the button on France.

Your generalisation of Americans is without substance.

Originally Posted by Kliro

American democracy is a very dangerous thing

No it isn't. There are things far more dangerous than any democracy.

Without further qualification, your statement just sounds like anti-Americanism to me. While this is a popular sport, it is just another form of prejudice.

Originally Posted by Kliro

- with many in the country unable to locate Iraq on a map or even tell you of its localised position - but all of them with an opinion on the matter.

Can you put your finger on a globe to pinpoint Timbuktoo?

In any country as large as the US there are going to be many people who have little concept of the rest of the world, particularly if they haven't travelled. Hardly a crime. Furthermore, I suspect very few people over here know much about the USA.

As for having an opinion - I'm glad that 'all of them' have one. It would be sad if people simply didn't care.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

Still doesnt mean he was going to use them does it. More so a case of Israel showing its might to neigbouring arab countries again.

anyway for what gives the right for israel to have nuclear weapons when its leaders sanction bombings of 'terrorist targets' irrespective of the civilian deaths caused? I bet there are thoussands of israelis going around citing death to all its arab neighbours, but there's no problem with them having weapons....

Iraq has in the past attacked Israel unprevoked on many occasions.
Perhaps that will open your eyes as to why Israel took the pre-emptive action to prevent such a threat.
Israel has not signed the NPT. Iran has.
No leader of Israel has called for another nation and it's population to be wiped out.
The majority of Israelis just want to live in peace, hence why they've created such good trading relationships with their neighbours.
Who do you think supplies most of the middle east's disalination technology?
Remember it was Israel's neighbours who created the "palestinian" problem (exasserbated by Israel's subsiquent actions) by trying to incite them to riot and kill all the jews. Instead they fled into their neighbouring arab nations, where they were not welcomed. Instead they were put into camps and treated like dirt (to put it politely) by their muslim brothers, and used as a weapon against Israel.
Why do you think Egypt didn't want Gaza back during the land for peace negotiations which saw the return of Sinai? Egypt refused to take Gaza back because it was full of palestinians.

If a nation called for Britain to be wiped of the planet and all british people along with it, would you object to them being alowed to develope the means, or would you stand by and let them get on with it?

---------- Post added at 12:12 ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 ----------

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

In any country as large as the US there are going to be many people who have little concept of the rest of the world, particularly if they haven't travelled. Hardly a crime. Furthermore, I suspect very few people over here know much about the USA.

Exactly.
Come on, we've got people in this country who think East Anglia is abroad

One of the interesting things I heard recently was from the US chaplin who's an imam.
He said that most Iraqi's didn't know that muslims existed in the US, let alone outside the middle east!

Originally Posted by Kliro

It is estimated that somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 civilians have been unlawfully killed in iraq since the beginning of the war.

Estimated by who?

In a war, non-combatants are always going to get killed. It's the nature of war. When the combatants go hiding among non-combatants that becomes more likely. When they then continue to wage war from behind that 'shield' what are the opposing forces to do? Just sit & die?

While you're estimating, have a go at estimating how many people have been killed by the insurgents. And in this case there can be no confusion - they're targetting civilian as well as military targets - but mostly civilians, since they don't shoot back.

Originally Posted by Kliro

Not so much 'accidental' civilian targets - but an attempt to try and send a message across to other middle eastern countries that they werent messing around.

Says who?

That's just unsubstantiated anti-war propaganda. I think we can see where you're coming from.

P.S. 5-10000 dead does not equal genocide. That word is being abused in this context.

[zovat]

The issue here (as I see it ) is that Iran, as a signatory to the NPT are re-starting a program that could be used to attain nuclear weapons, whilst no longer negotiating on a method of verifying that the uranium thy produce will be used for non-weapons use only.

Other nations that have/may have nuclear weapons and are not signatories to the treaty are no less an issue, but are not bound by the same rules. (although as already stated, India, Pakistan and North Korea openly admit their nuclear capabilty, and Israel is still making no denial or admission) None of these states are currently saying they will not develop them (although NK is still saying it will in return for light water reactors) or that they will increase their arsenal...

There was the same amount of concern when NK dropped from the NPT, and also when Pakistan tested a nuclear warhead.

Leaving the usual US bashing aside - Iran signed the treaty, and agreed to be bound by it - now they are refusing to have their compliance checked - that is an issue for the UN..

The statement to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" is nothing new - many Muslims are opposed to the existance of the state of Israel - Rhetoric and bravado are nothing new in the middle east.
The Iraq situation has made people nervous.
Those countries that fear they may be next (Iran and Syria have been bandied around in the world press), and the rest of the world who wonder if that fear will be translated into paranoia and stockpiling, which may well lead to a new "cold war", only this time the sides would be based on religion rather then government.

Originally Posted by dezzo

Well Israel also don't seem to mind annexing land, kidnapping people from other countries and taking them back to Israel illegally, state-sponsored killings of people with no trial, keeping people in solitary confinement in jail for years at a time etc. etc.

And that is a valid argument as to why Iran should have nukes?

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

Still doesnt mean he was going to use them does it. More so a case of Israel showing its might to neigbouring arab countries again.

I think it is fair to assume that someone prepared to use chemical weapons on their own citizens is more than capable of using WMD against another country.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

anyway for what gives the right for israel to have nuclear weapons when its leaders sanction bombings of 'terrorist targets' irrespective of the civilian deaths caused?

Apart from the fact that it is not at all the same as calling for a nation to be wiped off the map, the reason for Israel's robust attitude towards terrorists is because the terrorists hide among civilians for protection. (Or perhaps the civilians are hiding them?)

If the terrorists want war with Israel, they can have it - Israel will be more than happy to meet them on the battle field. Of course the terrorists know that they would lose a war.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

I bet there are thoussands of israelis going around citing death to all its arab neighbours, but there's no problem with them having weapons....

Can we have 1000's of links of reports of them saying that?

[Kliro]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

P.S. 5-10000 dead does not equal genocide. That word is being abused in this context.

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups

Nobody can bring a charge of genocide against America without their say-so - In 1998 Yugoslavia tried to charge America with genocide, after the Kosovan war - America refused for this charge to be brought against them.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Kliro

:
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups

I think you just backed up what SWW said, that word is being abused in this context

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

And that is a valid argument as to why Iran should have nukes?

It was a response to a previous post that pointed out Israel had attacked Iraq's nuclear program. I was pointing out that Israel has a habit of taking matters into its own hands.

Originally Posted by Kliro

Nobody can bring a charge of genocide against America without their say-so

Says who?

Originally Posted by Kliro

In 1998 Yugoslavia tried to charge America with genocide, after the Kosovan war - America refused for this charge to be brought against them.

Quite right too, because it was not Americans that slaughtered masses of people.

If there was an attempt at genocide it was by the Serbs on the Kosovans.

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:08 ----------

Originally Posted by dezzo

I was pointing out that Israel has a habit of taking matters into its own hands.

I don't think that a diverse list of, possibly, unsubstantiated propaganda is pointing anything out, except that you clearly have an anti-American, anti-Israeli agenda.